STRICTURES 

*1 

ON  A 

.  i  > 

% 

PAMPHLET,  \ 

PUBLISHED  BY  A  MINORITY 


,  OF  7 HE 

EASTERN  SUBORDINATE  SYNOD, 

€ 


OF  THE 


REFORMED  PRESBYTERIAN'  CHURCH. 


ROBERT  GIBSOSf, 

7 

Pastor  of  the  Second  Reformed  Presbyterian  Church,  in  the  city  of  New- York. 


1 

- - 

“  Paul,  thou  art  beside  thyself,  much  learning’  doth  make  thee  mad.  But 
he  said,  I  am  not  mad,  most  noble  Fcstus.1’ — Ac’^s. 


NEW-YORK  z 

PRINTED  AT  THE  GREENWICH  PRINTING  OFFICE* 

No.  118  Barnov  street. 


1832. 


i  n  u 


STRICTURES. 


2-SfS.S 

G  3.  «s  i  & 


It  must  be  distressing  to  every  lover  of  Zion,  to  see  divi¬ 
sions  in  the  church  of  God.  Still  more  so,  to  find  Christian 
professors  and  Christian  ministers  turn  their  weapons  against 
each  other,  and  that  with  all  the  bitterness  of  partizans,  and 
without  respect  to  personal  character.  Opposition  from  the 
world  is  to  be  expected,  and,  sometimes,  even  a  mean  personal 
assault  of  character,  both  ungenerous  and  unjust,  is  looked  for, 
where  men  choose  to  lay  aside  manhood,  and  condescend  to 
any  thing  for  the  support  of  party.  Still,  the  good  sense  of  a 
thinking  community  will  ultimately  frown  upon  a  course  so 
opposed  to  the  law  of  kindness. 

This  document  does  not  profess  to  be  written  in  the  kindest 
language.  It  is  intended  to  repel  an  ungenteel  and  unchris¬ 
tian  attack  made  upon  an  injured  man  and  minister  of  God’s 
sanctuary,  as  well  as  that  of  his  brethren,  who  are  misrepre¬ 
sented  in  a  pamphlet  sanctioned  by  a  minority  of  synod,  con¬ 
sisting  of  six  ministers  and  six  ruling  elders. 

The  occasion  of  the  following  remarks  and  animadversions, 
is,  the  circulation  of  a  pamphlet,  entitled  “An  original  draft  of 
a  Pastoral  Address,”  and  having  an  appendix  of  sixteen  pages, 
containing  notes,  one  of  which  is  particularly  offensive.  This 
pamphlet  is  industriously  circulated  through  the  various  con¬ 
gregations  in  the  connection  of  the  Reformed  Presbyterian 
Church. 

In  about  a  week  after  this  publication  saw  the  light,  a  para¬ 
graph  appeared  in  the  Christian  Expositor,  under  the  editorial 
head,  of  which  the  following  is  an  extract. 

“With  one  or  two  exceptions  of  minor  importance,  we  are 
tc  pleased  with  the  whole  production,  and  the  course  of  policy 
“  which  it  advocates.  It  is  worthy  of  the  high  reputation  of  its 
“  learned  author.  And  as  further  illustrated  by  the « notes,  it 


4 


“  exhibits  a  view  of  the  moral  character  of  the  American  govern- 
“  ment — of  the  relations  of  our  ecclesiastical  community  to  the 
“civil  institutions  of  our  country— and  of  the  church’s  legisla- 
“  tion  upon  these  subjects,  which  has  our  cordial  approbation.” 
See  Expositor,  vol.  *2,  No.  2,  page  75- 

In  the  following  page  the  editor  remarks — “If  the  principles 
“which  it  (original  Synodical  Address)  advocates,  are  obnox- 
“  ious  to  any,  let  such  employ  the  weapons  of  honour,  reason,  and 
“Christianity,  in  opposing  them.  But  henceforth,  let  the  in¬ 
definite  charges  of  apostacy — the  hinting  crimination  of  mo- 
“tive — and  the  intangible  insinuations  calculated  to  destroy 
“confidence,  and  whisper  ministerial  and  private  character  to 
“  ruin,  be  left  for  those  who  are  sufficiently  degraded  to  employ 
“  them.” 

In  the  above  paragraph  there  does  appear  something  like 
whispering  ministerial  and  private  character  to  ruin  in  the  use  of 
the  word  “henceforth;”  but  we  give  credit  to  the  author  or 
authors  of  note  B.  page  26'th,  Original  Draft,  for  ceasing  to 
whisper,  and  more  magnanimously  slandering  openly. 

By  the  introduction,  pages  3d  and  4th,  it  appears  that  only 
part  of  that  address  had  been  sanctioned  by  the  Eastern  Synod 
— that  the  minority  had  published  the  entire  address  on  their 
own  responsibility — and  that  notes  were  to  be  added,  explana¬ 
tory  of  the  instrument,  on  the  same  responsibility.  As  the 
whole  minority  of  synod  was  to  be  held  responsible  for  the 
notes  and  explanations,  it  was  confidently  expected  that  some¬ 
thing  dignified,  manly,  and  Christian,  would  be  published  un¬ 
der  the  sanction  of  twelve  Presbyters,  forming  that  minority  ; 
but  how  great  was  our  astonishment  to  find,  under  note  B.  page 
20th,  an  Essay  of  Dr.  Willson,  entitled  “  Prince  Messiah,”  in¬ 
troduced,  and  a  low,  personal  attack  made  upon  his  character 
as  a  man  under  the  influence  of  derangement. 

Both  the  rejected  part  of  the  address,  and  the  notes  (intended 
to  give  “a  definite  location  to  the  allusions  of  the  Address  f)  hold 
him  up  as  the  leader  of  thoughtless  men  of  a  party — distracting 
the  church — teaching  novel  doctrines — novel  practices — being  new 
light  pedlars — disorganizes — possessed  of  infuriate  zeal — having 
their  party  shibboleth — holding  vital  godliness  and  moral  worth 
as  but  minor  considerations — as  a  people  who  are  happily  pre¬ 
vented  from  daring  to  use  any  other  sword,  than  that  of  the  mouth 
— men  of  manufactured  consciences,  &c.  &e.  Their  leader,  Dr. 


Willson,  is  represented  as  insane — an  aspiring  Diotraphes— -a 
fanatic — leader  of  a  shibboleth  party — of  disorganizing  new 
light  pedlars — and  his  doctrines  as  being  the  illiberal  vagaries 
of  insanity  and  fanaticism,  &c.  while  as  to  themselves  (modest 
men!)  they  are  “  the  sober,  discreet,  temperate,  and  intelligent 
part  of  the  brethren — men  of  vital  godliness  and  moral  worth.” 

Such  seems  to  be  an  outline  of  the  three  characters  brought 
forward  on  the  arena  of  public  conflict,  as  either  explicitly 
stated  in  the  address  and  notes,  or  plainly  insinuated.  View¬ 
ing  the  matter  in  this  light,  the  writer  of  this  document  thought 
that  the  interests  of  religion  generally,  of  the  Reformed  Presby¬ 
terian  Church,  and  of  an  oppressed  and  abused  man,  demanded 
that  a  few  animadversions  should  be,  if  possible,  as  extensively 
circulated  as  the  above  pamphlet,  to  correct  the  misrepresen¬ 
tation,  and  repel  the  ungenteel  attack  made  upon  a  respectable 
minister  of  Jesus  Christ. 

The  very  fact  of  publishing  the  rejected  part  of  the  Synodical 
Address  seems  objectionable.  Not  that  there  is  any  objection 
to  men  publishing  on  their  own  responsibility.  The  freedom 
of  the  press  is  an  invaluable  blessing;  but  it  may  be  abused. 
In  this  case  it  certainly  has  been.  Something  is  due  to  an  ec¬ 
clesiastical  court  on  the  groifnd  of  courtesy.  Where  a  court 
has  not  assailed  the  reputation  of  the  writer  or  writers  of  a 
document,  nor  impugned  their  motives ;  but  where  it  has  delibe¬ 
rately  thought  a  document  was  uncalled  for,  or  was  so  expressed 
as  to  divide  and  distract,  rather  than  conciliate,  it  seems  cour¬ 
teous  in  an  individual,  or  a  minority,  to  withhold  an  appeal  to 
the  public  to  see  what  change  a  little  time  and  reflection  will 
produce. 

But  we  take  higher  ground.  Whatever  right  an  individual 
may  have  as  a  man,  and  as  an  American,  as  a  Presbyterian,  he 
is  bound  by  Presbyterial  law  and  order.  According  to  Pres¬ 
byterian  churcli  order,  if  a  document  is  rejected,  or  if  an  act  is 
passed  in  opposition  to  the  judgment  of  an  individual,  or  of  a 
minority,  he  or  they  have  a  right  to  enter  a  dissent,  or  even  a 
protest,  assigning  the  reasons  of  such  dissent,  and  having  them 
recorded  upon  the  minutes  of  Presbytery  or  Synod;  but  they 
have  no  right  given  them  to  publish  a  document  rejected  by  the 
deliberate  vote  of  a  church  court;  and  much  less  has  any  mem¬ 
ber  a  right  to  form  a  party  and  appeal  to  the  public,  without  re¬ 
cording  the  protest  and  the  reasons  on  which  it  is  based.  They 


6 


have  a  right  to  dissent,  and  even  to  secede  from  the  community 
of  professors;  but,  while  remaining  among  them,  they  have  no 
right  to  follow  a  decisive  course.  It  is  contrary  to  Presbyte¬ 
rianism,  and  contrary  to  their  engagements  at  ordination. 
They  engage  to  submit  to  the  courts  in  the  Lord:  but  in  this 
case  there  is  not  even  a  delay  till  the  meeting  of  the  superior 
court  ;  but  a  minority,  contrary  to  express  judicial  act,  throw 
into  the  hands  of  the  people  a  document  condemned  by  Synod. 

In  opposition  to  the  editor  of  the  Expositor,  it  is  asserted, 
that  they  neither  have  such  a  right,  nor  any  approved  precedent . 
The  only  precedent  that  will  be  plead  is  that  of  Dr.  McLeod, 
chairman  of  the  committee  of  correspondence,  who  published  on 
his  own  personal  responsibility,  an  address  accompanying  a  re¬ 
port  of  the  committee  of  which  he  was  the  chairman.  That  this 
punishes  no  precedent  will  appear  from  the  following  statements. 

I.  The  conduct  of  Dr.  McLeod,  in  that  matter,  was  never 
judicially  approved. 

II.  It  never  was  offered  to  the  court  as  the  report  of  the  com¬ 
mittee,  but  as  his  own,  and  accompanying  the  document. 

III.  It  never  was  given  to  the  court  with  a  view  to  publication, 
or  their  adoption ;  but  simply  as  an  argument  to  justify  the  re¬ 
port  of  the  Committee. 

IV.  No  act  was  passed  that  it  should  not  be  published. 

V.  The  Doctor  published  it  as  his  own,  on  his  own  respon¬ 
sibility,  and  neither  took  pecuniary  aid  from  others  in  order  to 
its  publication,  nor  availed  himself  of  the  feelings  or  prejudices, 
or  liberal  views  of  others  to  have  them  committed  along  with 
himself.  He  endured  the  reproach,  or  took  the  credit  alone, 
and  did  not  lay  a  foundation  for  rending  the  church,  or  viola¬ 
ting  presbyterian  church  order,  in  an  act  of  insubordination-And 

VI.  There  was  no  higher  court,  than  that  before  which  the  do¬ 
cument  was  read,  to  which  an  appeal  could  be  made.  The 
contrary  of  all  these  is  the  matter  of  fact,  in  relation  to  the  ve- 
ry  singular  document  under  review.  —  The  Anti-synodical  Ad¬ 
dress. 

In  the  transactions  of  the  Reformed  Presbyterian  Church,  a 
transaction  is  recollected,  illustrative  of  the  above  sentiment — 
viz.  that  no  committee,  or  minority  has  a  right  to  publish  a  do¬ 
cument,  however  good,  that  by  the  majority  is  thought  inexpe¬ 
dient,  or  uncalled  for. 

At  a  previous  meeting  of  synod,  a  committee  had  been  ap« 


I 


7 

pointed  to  prepare  a  document  on  our  civil  relations  with  the 
United  States.  An  able  document  was  prepared,  and  read  be¬ 
fore  synod  at  its  sessions  in  1830.  Every  member  said  he  could 
subscribe  every  principle  contained  in  the  report — none  dared 
at  that  time  oppose  it,  (even  “the  learned  author  of  the  pastoral 
address,”  said  then,  that  he  “did  not  know  that  there  was  one 
sentiment  in  it  that  he  could  not  subscribe,”)  but  the  majority 
thought  it  uncalled  for  under  the  then  existing  circumstances, 
and  it  was  referred  to  a  committee,  who  reported  it  as  inexpedi¬ 
ent  to  publish  the  document  at  present,  or  something  to  that; 
effect. 

The  original  committee  was  treated  with  little  courtesy. 
Its  labour  was  thrown  away:  the  document  was  smothered  ;  it 
was  evidently  put  into  the  hands  of  the  second  committee,  that 
it  might  never  see  the  light.  Of  this  fact  the  writer  of  this  ar¬ 
ticle  is  well  aware,  for  deeming  it  uncalled  for,  he  both  knew 
that  this  was  the  object  of  others  and  himself,  in  adding  to  the 
committee. 

A  copy  of  that  document  was  still  in  the  hands  of  the  former 
chairman.  Why  did  he  not  publish  it?  Certainly,  not  because 
he  thought  the  report  useless  or  injurious,  but  simply  that  he 
determined  to  act  as  a  presbyterian,  to  submit  to  the  decision  of 
the  majority,  and  not  rend  the  church.  We  hear  of  no  expres¬ 
sions  of  wrath  from  that- committee — we  find  no  report  foisted 
into  the  churches  by  their  agency  ;  but  here  is  a  document  fil¬ 
led  with  insinuations,  personal  reflections,  and  stigmatizing  all 
those  who  might  differ  from  the  sentiments  therein  contained 
as  not  thinking  for  themselves,  having  their  consciences  manu¬ 
factured,  and  being  led  by  a  man  under  the  influence  of  derange¬ 
ment.  The  notes  do  not  seem  intended,  and  certainly  are  not 
calculated  to  soothe  the  feelings,  or  remove  the  roughness  of  the 
invective  in  the  rejected  part  of  the  pastoral  letter;  but  rather 
to  fix  a  charge  of  insanity  on  a  distinguished  member  of  the 
court,  and  give  location  to  the  terms  “  aspiring  diotraphes — intol- 
“  erance  and  fanaticism — illiberal  vagaries  of  insanity  and  fanati¬ 
cism — wild  reveries  of  ignorance  and  enthusiasm — insinua¬ 
tions  and  foul  misrepresentations  of  the  prejudiced,  pestilent, 
“designing  and  ambitious — and  unprincipled  and  ambitious 
“demagogue,”  &c.  &c.  which  are  embodied  in  that  thing  called 
a  pastoral  address. 

These  notes  also  give  location  to  all  the  surly  epithets  con- 


eerning  the  majority  of  synod,  as  led  on  by  a  man,  such  as  the 
notes  would  represent  him  to  be.  They  give  location  to  such 
expressions  as,  having  “consciences  manufactured  for  you — 
“animated  with  an  infuriate  zeal  for  the  extirpation  of  every 
“  one  who  cannot  articulate  with  sufficient  distinctness  their  par- 
<c  ty  shibboleth — men  introducing  novel  doctrines-^-novel  prac- 
“  tices — disorganizing  new  light  pedlars — disturbers  of  the  good 
“  order  and  harmony  of  Zion,”  &c.  &c. — but  I  forbear.  A  pub¬ 
lic  document  containing  so  much  vituperation  and  ungenteel 
ribaldry,  has  never  come  under  my  observation.  To  use  the 
language  of  its  eulogist-44  it  is  worthy  of  (he  high  reputation  of  its 
learned  author-we  admire  the  magnanimity  it  displays.”  Wor¬ 
thy  of  the  high  reputation!  magnanimity!  yes,  it  is  in  perfect 
keeping  with  his  “  tivo  sons  of  oilf  on  the  opposite  side  of  the 
question — written  in  the  same  spirit — a  spirit  which  never  did, 
and  never  can  do  any  good. 

So  much  for  the  general  aspect  of  the  document.  Let  us  ex¬ 
amine  a  few  of  its  statements.  In  page  10th  it  thus  states — “  re¬ 
flect  on  this  truth,  that  the  relation  of  our  ecclesiastical  commu¬ 
nity  to  the  civil  institutions  of  these  United  States,  has  never 
been  a  subject  of  definitive  legislation  in  our  judicatories.” 

What  do  these  gentlemen  mean  by  definitive  legislation? 
If  it  is  meant  that  no  final — no  unalterable  legislation  has  been 
enacted,  then  it  is  admitted.  All  our  church  deeds  may  be  al¬ 
tered,  and  we  feel  bound  to  alter  them  whenever  we  ascertain 
them  to  be  wrong;  but  if  it  is  intended  to  convey  the  idea  that 
no  positive  ar.d  express  law  has  been  enacted  by  the  Reformed 
Presbyterian  Church,  stating  die  light  in  which  it  viewed  the 
American  government ;  and  the  duty  of  its  members  to  abstain 
from  taking  any  part  in  public  affairs  by  voting,  sitting  on  ju¬ 
ries,  &c.  it  is  utterly  denied. 

In  the  year  1806,  May  15th,  the  church  enacted  that  its  mem¬ 
bers  should,  not  sit  on  juries,  or  vote  at  elections.  This  is  stated 
in  the  1st  edition  of  its  testimony,  pages  133 — 138,  and  certifi¬ 
ed  by  its  official  organs,  who  are  yet  living.  It  was  always  re¬ 
ceived  as  common  law  in  that  section  of  the  church;  which  law, 
more  than  any  other,  prevented  the  increase  of  the  covenanting 
church  everywhere  in  these  United  States.  There  is  not  a  con¬ 
gregation  in  all  their  connection,  nor  of  any  respectable  connec¬ 
tion  in  the  land,  living  among  covenanters,  that  did  not  view 
it  as  their  common  law;  and  it  is  well  known  that  some  of  the 


9 


very  men  who  tell  us  that  there  never  has  been  any  definitive 
legislation  upon  the  subject,  are  the  men  who  laid  this  grave¬ 
stone  upon  the  church,  of  which  they  are  so  much  ashamed, 
that,  at  this  late  day  they  come  forward  and  tell  us  there  was 
never  such  a  law!  verily,  these  are  the  new  light  pedlars,  and 
not  as  they  represent  themselves  in  the  Pastoral  address,  as  “  the 
“sober,  discreet,  temperate  and  intelligent  part  of  the  brethren, 
“  of  vital  godliness,  and  moral  worth'*  These  men  need  no 
trumpeters  of  their  fame.  They  live  in  their  own  story. 

Again  it  is  said  in  page  9th,  Original  Pastoral  Address,  “  va¬ 
rious  illiberal  attempts,  it  must  be  admitted  ,have  been  made, 
“to  stamp  as  the  Ordinance  of  the  Devil,  the  best  government 
“  on  earth,  &c.” 

It  is  true  that  such  attempts  have  been  made  in  relation  to 
this  government,  and  by  none  so  illiberal  and  violent,  as  by  “  the 
learned  author”  of  the  pastoral  address.  He  is  the  leader  in 
this  iniquity,  if  iniquity  it  be.  To  him  in  a  peculiar  manner  is 
the  church  indebted  for  her  disgrace,  if  disgrace  it  is,  to  “stamp 
as  the  Ordinance  of  the  Devil,  the  best  government  on  earth.” 
He  was  the  “manufacturer  of  factitious  consciences.”  Who 
has  not  read  his  “ sons  of  oil,”?  Who  deserves  best  the  appella¬ 
tion  of  a  new  light  pedlar? 

We  are  further  told,  page  10th,  that  “it  is  susceptible  of  de¬ 
monstration  that  since  the  commencement  of  Christianity,  no 
“government  on  earth  has  had  a  fairer  claim  to  recognition  as 
“  the  ordinance  of  God,  than  that  of  these  United  States.” 

Admit  the  American  government  to  be  the  Ordinance  of  God, 
the  truth  of  the  above  statement  is  questionable.  It  is  admitted 
that  no  government  of  which  we  read,  since  the  promulgation 
of  Christianity,  has  manifested  so  great  a  degree  of  republican¬ 
ism.  But  republicanism,  however  important,  is  not  the  main 
thing  in  constituting  the  ordinance  of  God.  Here  it  is  thought 
the  error  lies.  This  is  the  prevailing  mistake  in  our  day.  For¬ 
sooth,  because  our  government  is  republican  in  its  form,  there¬ 
fore  it  is  the  Ordinance  of  God  l  Had  not  Fiance  also  a  repub¬ 
lican  government,  when  the  King  was  ejected  and  Bonaparte 
was  first  Consul?  what  then?  was  it  therefore  the  ordinance  of 
God?  Who  does  not  know  that  these  French  republicans  voted 
that  there  was  no  God?  Mere  republicanism,  therefore,  is  no 
evidence  that  either  this  is  the  ordinance  of  God,  or  that  it  has 

a  higher  claim  to  be  recognized  as  the  ordinance  of  God,  than- 

B 


to 


the  British  nation  at  the  time  when  it  recognized  the  divine 
law  as  the  supreme  rule,  and  was  as  a  nation  in  covenant  with 
God. 

It  is  perfectly  easy  to  bluster  about  the  excellencies  of  democ¬ 
racy — to  shew  the  baseness  of  some  men,  who  hypocritically 
professed  attachment  to  the  covenants — and  who,  to  render 
them  odious  to  the  nation,  by  violence  attempted  to  compel 
some  to  enter  into  the  covenants  of  our  fathers — to  bring  this 
charge  against  the  innocent — and  thus  excite  the  prejudices  of 
the  multitude  against  both  the  nation  and  the  covenants.  This 
was  done  by  the  persecuters  in  days  of  old;  but  it  is  now  too 
late  to  employ  such  means,  with  a  hope  of  success  in  destroy¬ 
ing  a  covenanted  work  of  reformation.  Whatever  might  have 
been  the  form  of  government  in  the  nation,  it  was  in  covenant 
with  God. 

It  is  fearlessly  asserted,  that  there  is  nothing  in  scripture  to 
justify  the  belief  that  a  people  may  not  have  a  king,  if  they 
choose,  instead  of  a  President  or  First  Consul.  Kings  have 
ruled  with  divine  approbation.  If  the  people  choose  them, 
it  is  their  own  business.  If  they  approve  of  hereditary  govern¬ 
ment,  let  them  see  to  it.  We  admit  their  folly:  but  it  does 
not  distroy  the  moral  character  of  the  government.  Rehobo- 
am  was  not  too  wise,  yet  he  succeeded  his  father  upon  the 
throne.  Israel’s  government  was,  notwithstanding,  the  ordi¬ 
nance  of  God.  In  a  merely  political  point  of  view,  irrespective 
of  God  and  his  law,  it  is  admitted  that  this  government  has 
higher  claims;  but  bring  God  and  his  law  into  the  account,  and 
before  the  profanation  of  their  covenants,  and  papistical  viola¬ 
tion  of  the  constitution,  the  British  government  had  a  superior 
claim  to  be  accounted  the  ordinance  of  God.  It  formally  ac¬ 
knowledged  God  and  his  law,  as  well  as  the  Mediator,  but  this 
does  neither.  Some  States  may  acknowledge  God  and  his  law, 
in  some  slight  degree;  but  there  is  not  one  State  that  provides 
for  setting  aside  its  enactments  when  proven  to  be  contrary  to 
the  Law  of  God.  These  United  States,  as  such,  never  did  in  any 
form  acknowledge  God’s  law  as  paramount  to  every  other — nor 
did  any  State  in  the  union.  Their  Constitution  says  the  very 
reverse,  according  to  the  comment  of  their  own  statesmen.  See 
the  Tripolitan  treaty,  as  ratified  by  the  -President  and  Congress 
in  1797.  “  The  government  of  the  United  States  is  not  in  any 

“sense  founded  on  the  Christian  religion.  It  basin  itself,  no 


"character  of  enmity  against  the  laws  or  religion  of*  Mussul- 
“  men ,ff 

In  page  10th,  we  are  told  to  "  weigh  these  circumstances  can- 
"  d idly  and  see  if  you  can  find  any  thing  positively  immoral  in 
**  the  instrument  lying  at  the  foundation  of  that  momentous 
"transaction,  and  then  reject  it.” 

The  Reformed  Presbyterian  Church  holds  it  to  be  immoral 
in  any  man  to  refuse  or  neglect  to  recognize,  and  publicly  ac¬ 
knowledge  God — that  upon  this  principle  Christ  says,  "  whoso- 
f<  ever  is  ashamed  of  me  before  men,  of  him  will  I  be  ashamed 
"  before  my  father  and  his  Angels.”  It  is  equally  held  to  be  a 
sin  in  nations,  and  their  rulers  of  every  grade,  to  refuse  or  ne¬ 
glect  submission  to  God  and  his  Son — and  the  Spirit  of  God 
seems  to  recognize  this,  when  he  says — "  Be  wise  now  therefore 
O  ye  Kings :  be  instructed  ye  Judges  of  the  earth,  serve  the 
Lord  with  fear,  and  rejoice  with  trembling.  Kiss  the  Son,  lest 
he  be  angry ,  and  ye  perish,  from  the  way,  when  his  wrath  is  kin¬ 
dled  but  a  little,"’  Psal.  II.  10,  12.  Our  nation  has,  at  least,;ne- 
glected  to  obey  this  law;  for  most  assuredly  it  has  not  even 
mentioned  God,  his  Son,  or  his  law  in  the  general  constitution. 
The  learned  author  of  the  pastoral  letter  and  notes  used  to 
know  this,  but  has  discovered  a  happy  way  of  getting  rid  of  the 
difficulty;  for  he  tells  us — page  27,  Synod.  Address,  note  D. 
that  "a  man  is  still  a  man,  though  he  may  be  deficient  in  an  ear» 
"or  an  arm ,  or  have  some  unsightly  excressence  growing  upon 
"  his  person.” 

By  this  it  appears  that  a  neglect  of  God  & c.  is  a  small 
matter ,  as  an  ear,  an  arm,  or  some  unsightly  excressencei ! 
How  much  the  gentleman  has  advanced  in  a  respect  for  God 
and  his  law,  all  covenanters  will  judge  from  this  specimen  of 
sound  theological  reasoning .  Some  think  that  the  "  Boy"  thirty 
years  ago,  upon  this  subject,  knew  more  than  the  full  grown 
Doctor. 

But  we  have  yet  another  offset  from  the  learned  author’s 
pen.  "  There  are  entire  books  of  the  Bible,  in  which  the  name 
"of God  is  not  found,  but  this  does  not  destroy  their  divine  au- 
"  thenticity.’’ 

It  is  admitted  that  there  are  two  books  in  tin;  Bible,  in  which 
the  name  of  God  is  not  found;  but  fortunately  we  are  not  in¬ 
debted  to  these  clerical  and  lay  brethren  for  the  information. 
'  Thomas  Paine  and  some  other  very  rscpectable  theological  xvri- 


ters  told  ns  so  several  years  since !  W e  perceive  some  sense,  and 
great  wickedness  in  these  men  introducing  that  fact  to  view: 
but  it  is  difficult  to  perceive  the  use  of  our  brethren  quoting 
this  in  the  present  controversy,,  Do  they  mean  to  say  that  the 
law  of  God,  and  the  system  of  grace,  and  the  duty  of  nations, 
are  not  called  up  to  view — and  that  religion  and  morality  are 
not  inculcated  in  the  books  of  Esther  and  the  song  of  Solomon  ? 
Surely  they  do  not  mean  this;  and  unless  they  do,  it  has  no 
more  to  do  with  the  argument,  than  to  tell  us  that  Homer  was 
blind.  No  doubt  “  the  learned  author,”  and  his  collegues  might 
furnish  many  tests  in  the  Bible,  in  which  the  name  of  God,  and 
the  term  law  are  not  found,  but  will  they  therefore  force  upon 
the  majority  of  Synod,  that,  according  to  our  argument,  the 
Bible  is  not  the  constitution  of  God’s  kingdom  ?  We  do  not  con¬ 
tend  that  the  constitution  of  the  United  States  is  immoral  be¬ 
cause  the  name  of  God  is  not  introduced  into  every  section ,  and 
his  law  mentioned  in  every  clause ;  but  that  in  no  section  are 
either  of  them  once  mentioned ,  or  even  hinted  at .  With  Paine, 
and  his  kindred  theologians,  we  would  without  the  least  hesita¬ 
tion  discard  the  Bible,  if  in  the  whole  of  that  bobk  there  was  no 
mention  of  God,  the  mediator  and  his  law. 

After  all,  we  are  not  sure  that  upon  proof  of  positive  immor¬ 
ality  it  follows  that  therefore  a  government  is  no  more  the  ordi¬ 
nance  of  God.  On  this  principle  it  is  believed  that  it  would  be 
almost  impossible  to  find  the  ordinance  of  God  in  any  civil  or 
ecclesiastical  constitution  among  men.  Yet  these  gentlemen 
authorise  the  members  of  the  church  to  reject  the  American 
government  if  they  can  only  discover  positive  immorality. 

In  page  11th,  this  very  singular  document  states,  that  “  the 
most  obnoxious  feature,  indeed,  we  may  say,  the  only  obnox¬ 
ious  one — the  existence  of  slavery,  is  rapidly  softening  in  its 
unsightly  aspect.” 

Three  things  appear  upon  the  face  of  this  quotation. 

I.  That  slavery  is  worse  than  the  neglect  of  God  and  his  law. 

IT.  That  slavery  is  the  only  obnoxious  feature  in  our  con¬ 
stitution. 

III.  That  it  is  rapidly  softening  in  its  unsightly  aspect. 

It  will  not  be  dificult  to  demonstrate  that  not  one  of  these  as¬ 
sertions  is  true.  It  admits  of  no  dispute  that  God  is  not  even 
mentioned  in  the  United  States’  constitution,  nor  one  syllable 
concerning  his  holy  law.  It  has  been  shown  that  God  com- 


S3 


mands  the  nations  to  kiss  his  son,  and  that  it  is  immoral  to  ne^ 
gleet  to  acknowledge  God — and  we  further  observe,  that  this 
neglect  of  God’s  law  is  the  very  foundation  of  slavery ;  for,  if  it 
was  recognized  and  enforced,  the  law,  of  the  mediator,  would 
forever  set  aside  the  slavery  of  unoffending  men.  A  nation 
would  then  hear  Christ  saying,  “  whatsoever  ye  would  that  oth¬ 
ers  should  do  to  you,  do  ye  also  the  same  to  them  ;  this  is  the 
Law  and  the  Prophets.”  If  the  law  of  God  and  his  Son  would 
lead  to  this  course,  and  it  is  rejected,  then,  such  rejection  is 
even  worse  than  slavery.  Owing  to  this  rejection  of  the  law  of 
the  Most  High,  not  only  is  slavery  permitted,  but  the  slave¬ 
holder  is  constitutionally  rewarded.  He  has  votes  (conse¬ 
quently  influence  in  the  general  government)  in  proportion  to 
the  number  of  slaves  in  his  possession.  Three  votes  for  every 
five  slaves.  This  is  rewarding  and  encouraging  slavery. 

It  is  no  solid  answer  to  this  fact  to  say  that  they  are  also  tax¬ 
ed  in  the  same  proportion — for 

I.  The  Southern  people  considered  it  an  advantage,  notwith¬ 
standing  the  taxation,  or  they  would  not  have  stipulated  for  it, 
nor  would  the  Northern  have  granted  it,  as  a  compromise : — 

II.  In  the  view  of  the  divine  law  they  are  men,  not  property.— 

III.  It  is  a  serious  injury  to  the  black  man;  for  it  throws  so 
much  more  influence,  in  the  general  government,  into  the  hands 
of  his  unholy  master,  thereby  preventing  any  reformation  on  the 
subject  of  slavery. — 

lVr.  It  is  not  a  permission  of  three  slaves  out  of  five  to  vote 
at  the  polls,  (which  yet  would  be  too  trifling  to  mention  as  a 
compensation  for  the  loss  of  liberty)  but  a  grant  to  the  master  to 
enjoy  more  of  the  privileges  of  a  free  man,  because  more  deep 
in  the  iniquity  of  enslaving  his  fellow  men,  or  his  own  children. 

Nor  is  it  true  that  “  slavery  is  softening  in  its  unsightly 
aspect.  Slavery  is  not  on  the  decrease — slaves  are  used  with  no. 
more  kindness — the  general  government  has  taken  no  measures 
to  effect  their  entire  emancipation — no  compensation  has  been 
allowed  them  for  the  loss  of  their  liberty — slaves  are  yet  dis¬ 
posed  of  at  public  sale  in  the  District  of  Columbia — even 
nominal  covenanters  are  palliating  the  iniquity — and  it  yet  re¬ 
mains  constitutional  law,  that  a  free  state  must  give  up  the 
poor  African,  who,  instead  of  slaying  his  master,  has  fled  to 
another  state  for  protection.  The  constitution  has  been  a- 
mended,  but  no  change  has  been  made  in  favour  of  the  afflicted 


14 


son  or  daughter  of  Africa.  It  is  no  apology,  no  extenuation  of 
the  crime,  to  call  them  property,  and  say  that  as  property  they 
must  be  given  up.  It  is  much  more  like  the  conduct  reproved 
in  scripture — “  When  thou  sawest  a  thing,  thou  joinedst  with 
him  in  sin.” 

So  far  as  slavery  is  concerned,  it  was  an  unholy  alliance 
made  for  political  purposes — irrespective  of  human  rights, 
moral  honesty,  or  divine  law.  When  about  to  enter  into  a  con¬ 
stitutional  bond,  and  unite  as  sovereign  states  to  protect  and 
defend  each  other,  the  questions  were,  shall  we  unite  ?  and  on 
what  terms  ? 

“  All  men  are  born  free  and  equal,”  says  the  declaration  of 
independence.  To  hold  unoffending  men  in  bondage  is  im¬ 
moral — for  say  the  scriptures,  “  What  ye  would  that  others 
should  do  to  you,  do  ye  the  same  to  them:  this  is  the  law  and 
the  prophets.”  Well,  be  it  so,  is  the  language  of  the  northern, 
eastern,  and  middle  states;  of  two  evils  we  must  choose  the 
least.  These  are  the  only  terms  on  which  the  south  will  unite 
with  us,  and  we  will  rather  violate  the  law  of  God,  practically 
deny  the  declaration  of  independence,  and  send  back  the  poor 
captive  to  his  thraldom,  than  want  this  Union.  To  the  God 
who  freed  them  from  the  hand  of  a  powerful  enemy,  they  could 
not  confide  for  protection,  but  formed  a  union  on  a  principle 
as  immoral  as  it  is  opposed  to  human  rights. 

We  hear  of  the  Holy  Alliance  in  Europe;  but  European  des¬ 
pots  are  entirely  eclipsed  by  enlightened  Americans !  Here  is 
an  alliance  sealed  by  the  slavery  of  more  than  two  millions  of 
Africans — at  the  expense  of  their  degradation  as  men — and 
often  at  the  expense  of  the  life  both  of  body  and  soul.  Such  is 
our  Christian  land!  What  an  outcry  is  raised  about  the  im¬ 
prisonment  of  two  missionaries ,  and  how  silent  about  the  de¬ 
gradation  of  two  millions ,  ten  thousand,  four  hundred  and  thirty - 
six  slaves!!!  Yet  are  we,  told  by  twelve  ecclesiastics,  calling 
themselves  covenanters,  that  slavery  is  rapidly  softening  in  its 
unsightly  aspect ! 

As  Dr.  Willson  can  suffer  nothing  from  the  publication  of 
the  offensive  note  in  page  20th,  wre  give  it  in  the  words  as  pub¬ 
lished  by  the  minority  of  Synod. 

“  Amply  sufficient  has  been  quoted  to  give  a  definite  location 
to  these  and  similar  allusions  of  the  address.  All  the  remarks 
that  the  subscribers  of  this  document  see  fit  to  make  upon  the 


subject  is — ‘That  they  thus  publicly  disclaim  all  responsibility 
for  the  obnoxious  sentiments  contained  in  the  publication  re¬ 
ferred  to,  and  express  their  unqualified  reprobation  of  the  in¬ 
consistent,  partial,  and  erroneous  statements  with  which  it  is 
replete.  The  mental  alienation  under  which  its  author  labours, 
divest9  him  of  all  personal  responsibility.  And  as  this  has  now- 
become  notorious,  there  is  little  danger  that  the  ravings  of  in¬ 
sanity  will  be  mistaken  for  the  expressions  of  truth  and  holiness. 
This  infirmity  was  once  the  occasion  of  an  ecclesiastical'  pro¬ 
cess  by  which  he  was  debarred  from  the  exercise  of  his  func¬ 
tions  as  a  preacher  of  the  Gospel,  and  if  he  has  not  recently 
been  made  the  subject  of  judicial  cognizance,  it  is  to  be  attri¬ 
buted  to  the  tender,  yet  perhaps  culpable  sympathies  of  his 
brethren.’* 

For  several  years  the  writer  of  this  document  has  been  ac¬ 
quainted  with  Dr.  Willson.  With  his  public  character  he  has 
been  long  acquainted ;  for  the  Doctor’s  name  has,  for  at  least 
fifteen  years,  been  associated  with  the  Reformed  Presbyterian 
Church  as  one  of  her  most  distinguished  champions.  It  is  now 
too  late  to  attempt  to  destroy  his  character  by  a  calumnious 
libel  of  insanity;  and  a  generous  public  will  not  sustain  the 
slang,  that  a  majority  of  that  church  which  has  sacrificed  world¬ 
ly  honours  and  the  rewards  of  office,  that  the)7  might  support 
a  good  concience,  are  so  weak-minded,  and  thoughtless,  as  to- 
follow  an  insane  leader  in  a  measure  both  novel  and  sinfuk 

That  they  are  fallible  men,  and  liable  to  be  mistaken,  they 
will  readily  admit;  but  that  new  ground  is  assumed ,  every  can¬ 
did  man  who  has  read  their  testimony,  and  the  defence  of  that 
testimony  by  Doctors  McLeod,  McMaster,  Black,  and  Wylier 
must  deny,  even  though  it  should  be  asserted  by  twelve  Pres¬ 
byters. 

On  the  showing  of  the  authors  of  the  address  and  notes,  it  is 
evident  that  they  consider  the  statements  in  “  Prince  Messiah,” 
concerning  President  Washington,  as  no  way  affecting  the 
main  question  concerning  the  character  of  the  American  gov¬ 
ernment  (see  note  6th,  page  21st,  where  they  say — “  If  the  alle¬ 
gation  were  true,  it  effects  nothing  for  the  main  argument;)  and 
on  the  same  principle,  to  prove  the  insanity  of  Dr.  Willson,  and 
the  weakness  of  the  intellect  of  his  followers,  whose  conscien¬ 
ces  he  has  unfortunately  manufactured,  will  not  affect  the  ques¬ 
tion  in  dispute.  They  know  it  does  not.  Why  then  unneces- 


frarily  vituperate  their  own  ecclesiastical  connection  ;  and  why 
(even  if  it  were  true)  tell  the  world  that  Dr.  Willson  was  in¬ 
sane?  and  why,  on  the  credit  of  twelve  Presbyters,  leave  the 
impression  that  he  is  always  insane,  and  that  he  is  “ divested  of 
all  personal  responsibility  ?” 

It  is  most  astonishing  that  men  of  talent,  and  high  theologi¬ 
cal  standing,  should  condescend,  in  this  way,  to  an  act  which 
should  make  an  Ethiopian  blush.  Such  an  attack  from  twelve 
deists  is  sufficient  to  make  humanity  blush  for  ages ;  but  when, 
it  is  publicly  made  by  his  fellow  professors,  with  whom  he  has 
held  communion  for  nearly  thirty  years,  and  along  with  whom 
he  has  been  in  the  habit  of  sealing  his  covenant  with  God,  in 
giving  and  receiving  the  sacramental  pledge — who  were  bound 
in  all  good  conscience,  as  men,  as  church  members,  and  as 
church  officers,  to  defend  each  others  reputation — for  these 
men  to  denounce  a  fellow  creature  on  account  of  a  visitation 
of  God,  and  hold  him  up  as  a  lunatic ,  while  yet  of  regular  stand¬ 
ing  as  a  church  member  and  minister,  and  as  a  preacher  deci¬ 
dedly  more  popular  than  any  or  all  of  them,  seems  more  than 
strange.  Humanity  weeps  over  it. 

Nor  is  this  all.  They  admit  that  this  man  has  been  retained 
in  the  communion  though  confessedly  deranged.  Nor  does  it 
appear,  from  any  public  document ,  that  any  discovery  was  made 
of  this  derangement  while  he  could  be  imposed  upon  to  support 
their  ecclesiastical  policy,  nor  until  he  became  a  formidable 
antagonist  in  the  defence  of  the  old  practices ,  and  published 
principles  of  these  very  men — the  authors  of  the  anti-synodical 
address.  It  certainly  seems  strange  that  an  adherence  to  the 
principle  [note  A.*]  contained  in  the  act  prohibiting  voting  and 
sitting  on  juries,  declared  and  defended  by  Dr.  Wylie,  in  his 
e<  Sons  of  Oil” — Dr.  McLeod,  in  the  second  of  his  war  sermons, 
and  Dr.  McMaster,  in  his  “  Duty  of  Nations,”  should  be  an 
evidence  of  Dr.  Willson’s  derangement,  and  the  above  sermon3y 
exhibiting  and  supporting  the  same  views,  should  not  be  an 
evidence  of  their  insanity  !  But  upon  the  testimony  of  these 
men  it  proves  Dr.  Willson’s  insanity,  therefore  the  community 
are  at  liberty  to  believe,  that  these  very  liberal  gentlemen  were, 
at  least,  once  insane. 

As  the  “  Duty  of  Nations” — “War  Sermons” — and  “Sons  of 
Oil,”  may  not  be  as  industriously  and  extensively  circulated  as 

“  the  original  draft  and  notes,”  a  few  selections  are  made  from 

*  See  Notes. 


17 


each,  to  introduce  the  reader  to  the  harmony  in  sentiment  origi¬ 
nally  subsisting  between  their  authors  and  Dr.  Willson.  Our 
first  quotations  are  from  the  “  Duty  of  Nations.”  [Note  B.*] 

Page  16th,  5th  line  from  the  bottom  of  the  page. 

“From  his  hand  (Messiah’s)  the  law  should  be  received.  If 
‘‘his  law  be  not  received  he  cannot  be  obeyed.  If  his  authority 
“be  rejected,  after  the  command  of  obedience  is  proclaimed, 
“  rebellion  marks  their  conduct  who  do  so,  and  the  portion  of  re - 
“  bels  is  what  they  deserve”  % 

Page  1 8th,  “  The  law  of  the  Saviour  of  men  should  never  be 
“  forgotten,  ‘  whatsoever  ye  would  that  men  should  do  to  you,  do 
“  ye  even  so  to  them.’  This  is  the  law  of  benevolence — of  equity 
“not  to  be  violated  but  by  trampling  on  the  remonstrances  of 
“  conscience,  and  rejecting  the  authority  of  the  Redeemer  im- 
“  pressed  on  his  statutes.  Of  no  right  should  man  be  depriv- 
“  ed  unless  he  shall  have  forfeited  it  by  crime.  That  nation  has 
“  but  feeble  claims  to  virtuous  illumination — to  generosity — 
“to  justice, — which  tolerates,  not  to  mention  authorizing  the 
«  merciless  practice  of  robbing  a  fellow  mortal  of  all  that  is  val¬ 
uable  to  him  in  life,  his  liberty.  How  inconsistent  to  estab¬ 
lish  laws  to  punish  with  severity  yonder  plunderer  of  your 
“  sheep-fold,  and  by  the  same  authority  enact  statutes  to  justi- 
“fy  him  in  forcibly  degradinghis  brother  from  the  rank  of  man, 
“  and  in  plundering  him  of  what  is  more  precious  to  him  than  life.” 

Page  22d. 

In  the  first  part  of  the  page  the  Dr.  declares  the  infidelity  of 
being  indifferent  toward  the  church  of  God.  In  the  middle, 
he  states  the  proper  character  to  be  trusted  with  civil  affairs 
— and  in  the  latter  clause,  of  the  same  paragraph,  are  the  follow¬ 
ing  words. 

“  As  it  is  doubtless  a  duty  to  make  such  a  selection,  so  it  is 
“equally  incumbent  to  made  these  moral  and  religious  qualifi- 
“  cations  a  constitutional  condition  of  eligibility  to  office.  In  vain 
“do  men  inveigh  against  the  profanity  and  impiety  of  public 
“  characters,  while  silent  respecting  the  constitution  by  which  they 
"  are  eligible.  If  a  constitution  of  government  exclude  the 
“scriptures  of  truth  from  being  the  rule  of  the  nation,  in  man¬ 
aging  national  affairs — if  it  bind  the  hand  of  rulers,  in  their 
“  official  standing,  from  shewing  any  more  regard  to  the  religion 
“  of  Christ ,  than  to  the  delusions  of  Mahomet,  why  should  the  fra- 
“  mers  thereof, -why  should  the  approvers  thereof  declaim  against 

*  See  Notes. 

c 


18 


the  man  who  is  constitutionally  qualified  when  invested  with 
“  otTice  ? 

“A  greater  inconsistancy  in  human  conduct  can  scarcely  be 
“found,  than  men  solemnly  pledging  themselves,  either  per¬ 
sonally  or  by  representation,  to  maintain  inviolate  a  constitu- 
“  tion  which  rejects  the  law  of  God,  and  requires  no  profession  of 
“  religion  to  qualify  for  office  under  it,  and  at  the  same  time  re- 
“  probating  the  officers  of  government  for  irreligion.  If  these 
“  reformer^  be  sincere ,  let  them  begin  at  the  fountain  head — let 
“  the  constitutions  of  the  land  be  purified  from  infidelity — let 
“a  national  mark  of  disapprobation  be  set  upon  impiety — till 
“this  be  done  let  them  stand  at  a  distance  from  sanctioning 
“  immoral  deeds;  then  with  consistency  may  they  reprove  na- 
“  tional  immorality.  On  every  other  ground ,  either  their  sincerity 
“  or  discernment  may  be  justly  disputed. 

Page  38th,  foot  note. 

“  In  the  United  States  all  have  an  estabiishment,  as  well  the 
“  believer  in,  and  worshiper  of  the  Virgin  Mary,  as  the  worship¬ 
per  of  Jesus.” 

Page  41st,  foot  note. 

•4In  the  laws  of  our  States  respecting  these  things  there  is  a 
“glaring  inconsistency.  That  our  Redeemer  is  God  is  a  truth, 
“  and  that  open  image  worship  is  a  crime,  is  as  evidently  reveal- 
“ed,  as  that  the  first  day  of  the  week  should  be  observed  in  a 
“  religious  manner.  A  denial  of  the  first,  and  an  open  practice 
“  of  the  second,  are  doubtless  as  pernicious  as  a  violation  of  the 
“sabbath  by  attending  to  usual  secular  employments.  These 
“  employments  are  lawful  on  other  days  :  idolatry  and  blasphe- 
“  my  never  are.  Where  is  the  consistency  in  restraining  from 
“doing  on  the  sabbath  what  is  lawful  on  common  days,  and  to 
“  protect  in  the  commission  of  CFime  at  no  time  lawful  ?  The 
“man  who  profanes  the  name  of  any  person  of  the  trinity  in 
“common  life  will  be  punished;  but  if  under  the  pretext  of 
“  religious  principle  he  blasphemes  the  character  of  Jesus,  and 
“  profane  the  oracles  of  heaven  by  attempting  to  make  them 
“prove  the  Saviour  no  more  than  a  mortal  man,  he  passes  not 
“  only  without  censure,  but  has  a  right  guaranteed  him  so  to  do.” 

From  “the  war  sermons”  published  by  Dr.  M'Leod,  ser¬ 
mon  2d.  we  select  a  few  paragraphs,  shewing  also  the  coinci¬ 
dence  between  Drs.  M‘Leod  and  Willson,  with  respect  to  the 
United  State’s  government. 


Page  53d. 

“  The  constitutions  of  government,  as  reduced  to  practice, 
“  are  the  proper  objects  of  examination.  To  these,  as  it  res- 
“  pects  the  two  belligerents,  I  now  direct  your  attention,  while 
“  I  place  them  in  the  ballances  in  the  name  of  the  Judge  of  the 
“  world.  I  begin  at  home  with, 

I.  The  national  government  of  the  United  States. 

“  The  sins  of  a  nation  is  the  aggragate  of  all  the  transgres¬ 
sions  committed  by  individuals  in  that  nation,  but  these  are 
“  properly  national  £tfi£,which  are  notorious ,  prevalent .  and  char - 
“  acteristic. I  speak  not,  however,  of  the  nation  at  large,  but  of  its 
“constituted  authorities ,  and  therefore  attend  only  to  authorized 
sins.” 

Page  54th. 

“The  public  immobilities  of  the  constitution  of  the  federal 
“government,  may,  although  more  numerous  in  detail,  be  class- 
“  ed  under  two  heads,  viz.  Disrespect  for  God — and  violation  of 
“  human  liberty. 

By  the  terms  of  the  national  compact,  God  is  not  acknow¬ 
ledged,  and  holding  men  in  slavery  is  authorised.  Both  of  these 
are  evils. 

1.  God  is  not  acknowledged  in  the  constitution . 

In  concluding  the  argument  on  this  position,  in  page  55th, 
the  Dr.  employs  the  following  language — “  But  no  considera¬ 
tion  will  justify  the  framers  of  the  federal  constitution,  and 
“  the  administration  of  the  government,  in  withholding  a  re¬ 
cognition  of  the  Lord  and  his  Anointed,  from  the  grand  char- 
“  ter  of  the  nation.  On  our  daily  bread  we  ask  a  blessing.  At 
“our  ordinary  meals,  we  acknowledge  the  Lord  of  the  world, 
“  we  begin  our  last  testament  for  disposing  of  worldly  estates, 
“  in  the  name  of  God  :  and  shall  we  be  guiltless,  with  the  Bible 
“  in  our  hands,  to  disclaim  the  Christian  religion  as  a  body 
“politic?” 

In  a  foot  note,  Page  53th,  the  Dr.  says  that  they  have  dis¬ 
claimed  the  Christian  religion  in  these  words.  “  The  govern- 
“  ment  of  the  United  States  is  not  in  any  sense,  founded  on  the 
“  Christian  religion.  It  has  in  itself,  no  character  of  enmity 
“  against  the  laws  or  religion  of  Mussulmen.” 

Tripolitan  Treaty,  Art  11.  U.  S.  laws,  vol.  IV.  He  adds — 

“  This  treaty,  ratified  in  the  year  1797,  was  thereby  made 
“the  supreme  law  of  the  land.”  Cons.  Art,  6.  sec. -2.  Here 
he  represents  the  united  U.  States  as  telling  its  own  character — 
that  it  is  not  Christian. 


Page  *56,  be  says — 

“  The  constitution  of  our  government  recognizes  the  practice 
“  of  holding  men  without  being  convicted  of  any  offence  against 
“society,  in  perpetual  slavery To  establish  this  position  he 
“  quotes  the  constitution  of  the  United  States,  Art.  I.  sec.  9, 
“  clause  1. — and  constitution,  art.  I.  sect.  2,  clause  3. 

Almost  every  page  of  “  the  Sons  of  Oil”  carries  us  to  the  ex¬ 
tent  of  Dr.  Willson’s  “  Prince  Messiah,”  if  we  except  the  men¬ 
tion  of  General  Washington’s  religious  opinions:  and  some 
think,  that  Mr.  Wylie  did  not  flatter  dignitaries  in  those  days, 
any  more  than  Dr.  Willson  does  now.  Be  that  as  it  may,  we 
shall  strive  to  do  justice  to  the  Doctor,  by  furnishing  a  sample 
to  shew  the  doctrines  he  taught  for  the  purpose  of  “manufac¬ 
turing  consciences.” 

Sons  of  Oil — page  10th. 

“  Civil  government  does  not,  as  some  modern  politicians  aC 
“  firm,  originate  either  in  the  people  as  its  fountain,  or  in  the 
“  vices  consequent  upon  the  fall.” 

Page  20. 

“  They  agree  (civil  and  ecclesiastical  authority)  in  being 
“both  hound  to  take  the  moral  law  as  the  unerring  standard  of 
“  all  their  administrations.',y 

In  assigning  the  reasons  why  covenanters  cannot  yield  submis¬ 
sion  for  conscience  sake,  to  the  present  civil  authority  in  North 
America — he  says,  in 

Page  46. 

“  The  federal  constitution,  or  instrument  of  national  union, 
“  does  not  even  recognize  the  existence  of  God,  the  King  of 
nations.”  Same  page — “  most,  if  not  all,  of  the  State  constitu- 
“  tions  contain  positive  immorality.” 

Page  47, 

“  The  government  gives  a  legal  security  and  establishment  to 
“gross  heresy,  blasphemy,  and  idolatry,  under  the  notion  of 
“liberty  of  conscience.” 

In  page  48,  he  utters  a  severe  philippic  against  the  secession 
church  for  differing  from  him  on  that  subject. 

Page  51.  Speaking  of  the  constitution  of  Pennsylvania,  the  Dr. 
says,  “we  cannot  in  conscience  (however  others  may  look  up- 
“  on  it)  swear  allegiance  to  a  constitution,  so  friendly  to  the  ene- 
“  mies  of  Jesus.  We  are  bound  to  him  and  cannot  serve  two 
“  masters.” 


Page  53.  “They  make  no  provision  for  the  interest  of  true 
religion.  See  federal  constitution,  art.  3.  amendment.” 

Page  55.  “  Another  reason,  why  we  cannot  fully  incorporate 
with  the  national  society,  is  because  we  consider  them  in  a  state 
of  national  rebellion  against  God." 

Page  56.  “Deists,  and  even  Atheists  maybe  chief  magis¬ 
trates.  See  the  federal  constitution.” 

He  attempts  to  prove  it  by  two  arguments. 

I.  That  “an  affirmation  is  admitted  in  place  of  an  oath  of 
office.” 

II.  That  “  in  1797  the  good  people  of  the  Western  States  con- 
“  centred  by  representation  in  the  senatorial  council,  and  chief 
“  magistrate,  disclaimed  the  religion  of  Jesus,  in  the  ratification 
“  of  the  treaty  of  peace  and  friendship  with  the  Bey  of  Tripoli.” 
After  quoting  the  words  of  the  treaty,  (as  stated  above  in  the 
quotation  from  Dr.  McLeod’s  war  sermon)  the  rev.  gentleman 
adds — “  and  what  is  farther  worthy  of  notice,  by  the  sixth  arti¬ 
cle  of  the  federal  constitution,  this  treaty  is  made  the  su- 
“  preme  law  of  the  land.” 

Page  6*2.  This  modern  reformer  states  what  should  be  our 
conduct  toward  this  government.  “We  ought  to  do  no  act, 
“  which  may  be  justly  considered  an  homologation  of  their  ille - 
“  gitimatc  authority''  He  proceeds  to  specify  what  acts  might  be 
justly  considered  an  homologation  of  their  illegitimate  authority , 
He  mentions  four  acts. 

I.  An  oath  of  allegiance.  “  No  oath  of  allegiance  theerefore 
can  we  swear.” 

II.  Electing  public  functionaries.  “  We  cannot  elect  public 
functionaries  to  fill  the  various  offices  in  the  State.” 

III.  “  Nor  accept  of  an  office  to  which  an  oath  is  annexed.” 

IV.  “  Nor  sit  on  Juries.” — Page  63. 

In  answering  the  objection  concerning  oaths,  holding  deeds 
of  land  &c.,  the  gentleman  proceeds  to  shew  by  a  course  of 
reasoning,  in  pages  81-83  inclusive,  that  they  constitute  no  ho¬ 
mologation  of  the  constitution  of  the  land — no  approbation  of  the 
government,  or  recognition  of  its  authority. 

The  reading  of  the  book  is  recommended  to  all.'  covenanters 
— not  as  being  an  expose  of  their  principles  $  nor  as  fixing  the  law 
of  their  church ;  nor  as  being  all  true  ;  but  to  see  how  very  far, 
in  almost  every  important  position,  a  man  may  differ  from  him¬ 
self — and  how  harmonious  his  former  grand  points  of  discussion 


are  with  those  in  “  Prince  Messiah” — ami  to  see  how  bitter 
a  man  can  be  against  his  own  pupil ,  whose  conscience  he  has 
some  reason  to  believe  he  has  manufactured. 

The  above  quotations  are  given  for  the  purpose  of  shewing 
that  Dr.  Willson  has  not  assumed  new  principles,  nor  recom¬ 
mended  novel  practices — that  his  brethren,  defending  the  old 
cause,  are  neither  “  disorganize^’5  nor  “  new  light  pedlars,”  and 
that  if  the  pamphlet  entitled  “  Prince  Messiah”  evinces  derange¬ 
ment,  then  Doctors  McMaster,  McLeod,  and  Wylie  were  insane 
at  the  time  when  their  books  were  written  :  but  it  is  a  comforta¬ 
ble  reflection  that  they  are  now  free  from  mental  alienation  ! 

Let  us  again  turn  our  attention  to  the  pamphlet  under  review. 
An  extraordinary  item  in  the  notes  accompanying  “  the  original 
draft,”  is,  that  a  private  publication  of  Dr.  "Willson,  for  which  he 
only  was  responsible,  should  be  introduced,  and,  at  least,  by  in¬ 
sinuation,  hold  those  presbyters  who  forme  the  majority  of  Synod 
accountable  for  its  contents ;  as  if  that  pamphlet,  or  its  principles 
were  the  reason  of  voting  down  the  rejected  part  of  the  address.  It 
is  well  known  that  the  vote  of  some  of  that  majority,  was  not 
based  either  upon  the  principles  of  Dr.  Willson’s  pamphlet,  or 
any  of  the  reasonings  therein  ;  but  that,  in  their  judgment,  it 
was  uncalled  for — argued  only  one  side  of  the  question — impli¬ 
cated,  in  ungenteel  inuendo,  those  who  differed  from  the  writer 
of  the  instrument — and  was  calculated  to  produce  distraction 
in,  and  ultimately  rend  the  church.  Who  does  not  know  that 
some  of  that  majority  al  ways  abhorred  the  old  act  concerning 
juries,  voting,  See.,  and  blamed  the  leading  men  for  imposing 
unnecessary  burdens  upon  the  people,  and  afterwards  had  not 
sufficient  magnanimity  to  disannul,  by  a  direct  act,  a  law  so  use¬ 
less,  and  one  that  has  been  productive  of  so  much  evil:  yet 
there,  is  not  one  qualifying  phrase,  either  in  the  original  draft  or 
notes  appended  to  save  them  from  indiscriminate  condem¬ 
nation.  Why  call  up  “Prince  Messiah”  in  this  controver¬ 
sy?  who  plead  for  it  in  Synod?  who  opposed  the  address  be¬ 
cause  “Prince  Messiah”  was  apposed  to  its  principles,  reason¬ 
ings,  declamation,  and  insult?  And  do  not  these  “  sober,  tem- 
“  perate,  discreet,  intelligent  brethren— the  men  of  vital  godli- 
“  ness  and  moral  worth”  know  that  Dr.  Willson  is  “  insane ,  a 
Diotraphes,  pestilent,  prejudiced,  a  fanatic,  manufacturer  of 
consciences,  ambitious  demagogue,  and  new  light  pedlar”!! 
Why  introduce  this  man  ?  Why  should  twelve  sane  members  of 
Synod  condescend  to  his  pamphlet ! 


22 


It  appears  to  have  been  a  trick,  not  unlike  that  in  the  dele¬ 
gation  synod  of  1S31,  when  the  question  under  discussion  was, 
the  abandoning  of  the  delegation  system  so  far  as  it  referred  to 
the  attendance  of  ministers.  The  report  of  a  committee  on  the 
proper  mode  of  ordaining  elders  and  deacons  was  thrust  into 
the  discussion  for  no  conceivable  purpose,  but  to  throw  up  a 
blind  before  elders  and  ministers,  as  if  the  object  in  breaking 
down  the  delegation  was  to  carry  the  question  about  the  impo¬ 
sition  of  hands.  We  hear  something  about  this,  in  the  “  Chris¬ 
tian  Expositor,”  as  if  some  great  achievement  had  been  accom¬ 
plished  concerning  the  non-imposition  of  hands.  The  public 
will  best  judge  of  the  extraor dinar y  success  of  the  gentlemen, 
when  we  inform  them  that  the  subject  was  not  discussed,  but 
at  once  laid  on  the  table  of  Synod,  and  never  yet  called  up,  and 
that  there  was  not  one  person  opposed  to  the  measure.  It  was 
dragged  in  for  effect ,  and  opposed  by  some  men  as  if  it  were 
an  enormous  matter;  but  a  single  member  of  Synod  did  not 
speak  one  word  in  its  favour.  It  was  lying  on  the  table,  and 
not  called  up.  It  is  so  still. 

But  about  this  “mental  alienation.”  It  is  impossible  to  ac¬ 
count  satisfactorily  for  such  a  statement  from  such  a  quarter. 
To  use  an  expression  quoted  in  a  former  page — “  their  sincerity 
or  discernment  may  be  justly  disputed .” 

Did  they  fiud  him  treated  as  an  insane  man  ?  Did  they  not 
know  that  the  Assembly  of  the  State  of  New-York,  composed 
of  about  one  hundred  and  sixty  men,  the  representatives  of  the 
State,  and  supposed  to  be  sane ,  spent  nearly  two  days  in  legislat¬ 
ing  upon  this  man  and  his  pamphlet,  in  the  very  place  where 
he  lived,  and  where  they  might  have  known  of  his  insanity,  had 
there  existed  such  a  fact?  Were  they  ignorant  of  the  fact,  that 
almost  every  editor  of  a  public  political  print  in  the  Union, 
took  notice  of  the  conduct  of  the  Assembly  in  relation  to  this 
insane  production  which  gave  so  much  offence?  And  if  insane, 
why  twelve  ecclesiastics  write  a  book  against  him?  Query. 
Where  is  the  greatest  evidence  of  insanity  ?  Is  it  in  Dr.  Will- 
son’s  writing  a  book  coinciding  with  the  sentiments  of  “  the 
Sons  of  Oil”* — “  Duty  of  Nations” — and  “  War  Sermons”  — 
or  in  twelve  Presbyters  writing  a  book  against  a  madman? 
The  public  will  judge. 

It  really  does  appear  that  they  do  not  seriously  believe  in  his 
“  alienation  of  mind,”  and  that  he  is  “  destitute  of  all  personal 


responsibility.”  It  is  generally  admitted  that  he  walks  the 
streets  of  Albany  without  a  strait  jacket — is  considered  per¬ 
fectly  harmless,  and  endangers  no  man’s  life,  not  even  the  lives 
of  those  dear,  kind ,  good ,  culpably  sympathizing  brethren ,  who 
have  dealt  so  tenderly  with  him.  “  Tender,  yet  perhaps  culpa¬ 
ble  sympathies  of  his  brethren  1 !”  As  a  rare  exemplification 
of  their  tenderness  and  sympathy ,  let  any  honest  man  read  the 
last  paragraph  of  note  B.  original  draft. 

But  it  seems  that  this  kind,  tender  course  must  be  abandoned. 
The  man  has  become  dangerous — his  writings  are  read — a  hun¬ 
dred  and  sixty  legislators  think  him  worthy  of  notice,  censure, 
and  proscription.  Editors  tell  of  the  man — his  pamphlet —the 
magnanimity  of  the  State  Legislature  in  their  dealings  with 
him — and  it  requires  twelve  Presbyters  to  publish  a  book  and 
write  him  into  contempt ;  while  yet  they  find  they  cannot  suc¬ 
ceed  unless  they  lay  aside  their  tender  sympathies,  and  tell  the 
world  he  is  deranged  ! 

We  mignt  here  retort,  in  the  style  of  page  21st.  original  Sy¬ 
nodical  Address — “  And  among  other  modes  of  reasoning  em¬ 
ployed  to  sustain  a  position  which  was  evidently  felt  to  be  un¬ 
tenable,  reference  is  had  to  private  character  and  personal  opin¬ 
ions,”  that  “  these  being  proved  by  a  kind  of  sophistical  and  ad 
captanduin  argument,”  they  may  hide  the  deformity  of  that 
policy  which  they  prepared  for  the  church,  advocated  in  their 
public  discourses,  and  for  the  reception  of  which  they  have 
been  in  the  habit  of  manufacturing  consciences. 

After  all,  this  is  a  serious  business.  What  if  any  of  the  rela¬ 
tions  of  these  authors  of  note  B  should  become  deranged  ?  what 
if  they  themselves  should  yet  become  subject  to  “  mental  alien¬ 
ation ,”?  would  they  think  it  honourable  in  any  man  to  publish 
it  through  the  medium  of  the  press,  and  speak  lightly  and  re¬ 
proachfully  of  a  visitation  of  God  ?  Should  Dr.  Willson  publish 
such  an  article  in  his  “Quarterly,”  there  is  not  one  of  his  breth¬ 
ren  would  publish  a  line  in  defence  of  his  character.  They 
would  admit  his  insanity,  from  a  conviction,  that  otherwise,  he 
could  not  condescend  to  such  meanness  and  sinfulness.  To 
preserve  his  credit,  they  would  admit  him  insane. 

That  Dr.  Willson,  by  intense  study,  in  the  exercise  of  a  gi¬ 
gantic  mind,  has  been  under  God’s  hand  ;  and  that  the  church 
did  right  (some  twenty  years  since)  in  preventing  him,  for  a 
time,  while  a  licentiate,  from  preaching  the  gospel,  Dr.  Willson 


himself  and  his  brethren  will  admit;  but  that  he  wrote  the 
“  Prince  Messiah”  in  a  tit  of  mental  alienation,  or  that  he  is 
habitually  so,  they  must  in  truth  and  conscience  deny:  but  no 
other  construction  can  be  put  upon  the  expression,  “  the  men¬ 
tal  alienation  under  which  its  author  labours,  divests  him  of  all 
personal  responsibility.” 

What  could  be  the  object  in  making  so  violent  an  attack 
upon  Dr.  Willson  ?  Can  it  be  to  prostrate  the  reputation  of  a 
godly  man  [note  C.*]— a  Christian  minister  of  no  mean  stand¬ 
ing?  To  deprive  a  helpless  family  of  bread,  by  shaking  the 
confidence  of  the  church  in  his  integrity  or  sanity — or  that  of 
the  citizens  of  Albany,  so  that  they  may  withdraw  their  sons 
and  daughters  from  his  seminary?  Is  it  sheer  malice?  Or, 
rather,  is  it  not  that  they  would  court  the  world ,  at  whatever  ex¬ 
pense,  and  shield  themselves  from  the  reproach  connected  with 
their  former  publications?  They  may  account  for  it  the  best 
way  they  can  to  God,  and  their  own  unmanufactured  consciences. 

It  was  certainly  a  mistaken  course  in  those  of  that  minority 
who  had  committed  themselves  in  print  before  the  public. 
Who  will  not  now  inquire  for  “  the  Sons  of  Oil,”  War  Ser¬ 
mons,”  and  “ Duty  of  Nations?”  Covenanters,  at  least,  will 
read  them,  and  in  them  will  also  perceive  that  their  authors 
once,  and  Dr.  Willson  now,  are  agreed.  It  is  very  questiona¬ 
ble  whether  the  civil  community  will  judge  these  men  better  re¬ 
publicans,  or  more  honest  men,  than  when  they  told  them  their 
faults. 

In  conclusion,  it  is  stated  most  honestly,  that  although  the 
writer  hereof  is  not  embroiled  as  a  partizan  in  the  present  con¬ 
test  agitating  the  Reformed  Presbyterian  Church,  yet  he  sin¬ 
cerely  regrets  having  been  laid  under  the  necessity  of  saying 
hard  things  concerning  men  who  have  long  ranked  high  in  the 
church  of  God  :  but  he  could  not  stand  bv,  and  suffer  a  fellow 
professor,  and  an  honest  minister,  to  be  reproached  with  all  the 
bitter  epithets  to  which  note  B.  gives  locality.  He  views  it  as 
an  insult  to  the  majority  of  Synod,  as  they  seem  to  be  repre¬ 
sented  as  led  by  a  deranged  man  into  acts  of  infuriate  zeal. 
Perhaps  the  style  is  not  sufficiently  mild,  but  he  thinks  it  is,  at 
least,  as  much  so  as  that  of  the  pamphlet  to  which  it  replies. 
He  only  is  responsible  for  every  word.  His  name  accompanies 
it.  He  states  facts,  and  nothing  but  facts,  according  to  the  best 
of  his  judgment.  He  has  nothing  to  apprehend  from  the  gentle- 

*  See  Notes. 

D 


man  who  cautions  us  to  “ Beware!”  for  Dr.  Wylie  will  conde¬ 
scend  to  fight  with  neither  small  nor  great,  but  with  the  king 
of  Israel  only.  Should  he  look  down  upon  us  in  a  hind  letter 
through  the  magazine,  he  will  find  us  at  our  posts.  “  Great  is 
the  truth,  and  it  will  prevail.” 

ROBERT  CrIBSON# 


New-York,  Nov .  8 th,  1833. 


( 


* 


♦ 


NOTES. 


Note  A.  Why  refuse  to  let  covenanters  vote,  sit  on  juries,  &c.  for  so  many 
years?  It  must  be  something',  in  their  judgment,  fundamentally  wrong  in 
the  government  of  the  land.  This  is  not  a  mere  difference  of  views  in  the  ap¬ 
plication  of  principle.  Had  they  recognized  the  government  as  the  ordinance 
of  God,  or  even  a  good  ordinance  of  man,  the  church  had  not  been  so  long 
trammelled.  However  far  Dr.  Willson  may  have  pressed  the  subject,  the 
quotations  given  in  the  former  pages  show,  that  they  have  gone  as  far,  if  not 
farther,  with  the  exception  of  a  reference  to  Washington’s  religion.  They, 
however,  have  this  to  account  for,  not  that  they  have  been  taught  these  sen¬ 
timents  by  Dr.  Willson,  but  that  they  taught  Dr.  Willson  to  relinquish,  for 
conscience  sake,  his  natural  rights  as  a  citizen.  The  Doctor  was  born  a  citi¬ 
zen.  They  were  foreigners. 

Note  B.  It  is  with  regret  that  the  name  of  Dr.  McMaster  has  been  intro¬ 
duced,  or  any  quotation  from  his  “  Duty  of  Nations,”  as  he  is,  by  the  writer 
of  this  document,  viewed  as  an  honourable  man.  And  it  is  strongly  suspected 
that  it  must  have  been  without  his  knowledge  or  consent  that  the  offensive 
paragraph  in  page  20th,  original  Synodical  Address,  ever  saw  the  light.  From 
what  is  known  of  the  Doctor,  it  is  believed  he  is  above  such  little  conduct ,  and  be¬ 
sides,  that  he  has  too  much  good  sense  not  to  know  that  the  baseness  of  such  an 
attack  would  injure  even  a  good  cause.  His  name  and  writings  are  introduced 
merely  to  show,  that  with  the  exception  of  the  personal  attack  upon  the  late 
rulers,  he  has  written  in  favour  of  the  principle  assumed  by  Dr.  Willson,  in 
his  “Prince  Messiah,”  and  that  the  Essay  can  be  no  evidence  of  Dr.  Will¬ 
son’s  derangement. 

The  most  that  can  be  said  is,  that  it  was  indiscreet  to  say  a  word  against 
the  idol  of  the  American  nation.  If  information  has  been  furnished  to  de¬ 
monstrate  that  there  has  been  one  pious  ruler  at  the  helm  of  affairs  in  the 
United  States,  in  that  information  Dr.  Willson  will  rejoice.  His  whole  ob¬ 
ject  seems  to  be  to  urge  upon  the  people  the  duty  of  electing  such  men. 

Note  C.  “A  godly  man.”  When  is  Doctor  Willson  ever  supposed  to 
be  under  an  excitement  of  mind  ?  and  what  is  the  cause  of  such  excitement  ? 

His  greatest  enemy  cannot  say  that  he,  at  any  time,  under  such  itrSuence, 
preaches  against  the  standards  of  His  church — swears  profanely — gets  drunk — 
encourages  others  in  the  neglect  of  duty,  or  omits  the  zealous  discharge  of 
his  own  duty — prays  less,  or  is  less  fervent.  No.  The  contrary  of  these  are 
the  symptoms  ^ay  which  these  tender  brethren  suspect  him.  Is  he  insane?  has 
he  ever  been?  Who  will  dare  to  say  that  he  brought  it  upon  himself  by 
luxury ,  intemperance ,  or  immorality  of  life  ?  Those  who  know  him  best  esteem 
Dr.  Willson  a  godly  man. 


I 

4 


«• 


\ 


» 


■w. 


